With a manual focus-only lens, focus accuracy is 100% your responsibility. When using a tripod with 10x Live View manual focusing, my hit rate is nearly 100% even at f/1.4 with a close subject. With a stock DSLR focusing screen, my f/1.4 hit rate is significantly lower.

Without focus, resolution is less meaningful. I wouldnt use this on a tripod.

Well...perhaps you could buy (or rent) the Zeiss, photograph the ex wife with it and then post some high Rez pics here so that we could see her in all of her super-sharp, tight-micro-contrast, color-resolved GLORY? Just a thought.

I've been told that Zeiss and Leitz lenses are manufactured in Japan now and that these brand names are just licenses leased out by international trading companies that own those names. Is this true? Or, does Zeiss and Leitz still manufacture everything in Germany? Thanks

What difference would it make?

If Zeiss puts their name on it, I don't care if they had Aunt Mabel make it on Mars.

+1. Zeiss lenses are for the most part, made in Japan by Cosina. Meaning, you have excellent German lens design, being made by the Japanese who excel at high quality mass production. A perfect match in this era, in my books.

That's just my point. If Zeiss only exists in a leased name only then what's the hype all about. It's just another company trying to cash in on a former good name. My guess is we're all looking for the nostalgia in a new digital world. Reminds me of all the products being marketed today with names such as Polaroid and Bell & Howell.

As you can image, and predictably, the lens is phenomenal and possibly the best 50mm (yes, it’s 55mm) lens ever made for an DSLR.

Here in Germany the "fotomagazin" jounal has made a test and review where they say that the Sony/Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1,8 ZA has a better IQ at 1/4 of the price. I don't get 100% through their test methods to see if they did something wrong but the results are hard to believe as the optics are comming from the same source.

... If Zeiss only exists in a leased name only then what's the hype all about. It's just another company trying to cash in on a former good name. My guess is we're all looking for the nostalgia in a new digital world. Reminds me of all the products being marketed today with names such as Polaroid and Bell & Howell.

I think you should read a bit of what Zeiss is. It is clearly not ".. a leased name". To begin with, they have 24.000 employees, of which 10.000 sits in Germany. I doubt they are all counting money and printing brochures ...

The hype is that Zeiss has produced world leading optical products for decades and they continue to do so. The Otus receives all its praise, because it is That good.

I don't regret one second buying it…. it really is that good. I did a test against some other lenses we had lying around and while some of them were ok in the center at 2.8 Most of them were crap in the corners.

The so-called great value for money 50 1.8 looks terrible compared to the Otus… really down right terrible, and it feels equally as terrible operating. I never understood why people were so hyped over this Canon 50 1.8, but I guess that is needed when all you can afford is that.

I'll be picking up every Otus lens as they come out… as simple as that. But I fully acknowledge that some people are depending on AF to get the job done. I'm not… and if I am I'd still choose expensive L lenses over cheap non-L.

The thing is…. I shoot a lot of video. Actually video has become my main business by now. So I need something that operates well for video and even L lenses dont do that. The throw is too short and the sharpness fall off looks ugly, often the bokeh as well.

There's a reason that most major cinema releases, heck even Sundance and Cannes short films are shot on Arri Master / Ultra Primes or Cooke lenses. Because even though they are completely manual, the operate better, they are consistent in look and light transmission and that nice long throw for pulling focus.

I looked at the review - very impressive at 1.4. It is the contrast between sharpness of focus plane that sets off the bokeh - aka EF 85 1.2.

However in the comparisons I looked up TDP crops of the Nikkor 58 1.4G. What's going on there !? Have you seen the price of this lens ? Nikon is currently like a child's spinning top just as it loses it's momentum; it wobbles all over the place.

Lucky for us Canon users that Zeiss are pushing the boundaries - 'cos Nikon certainly aren't.

Incidentally I believe the Otus is made in Germany; it's the other dslr 'Zeiss' lenses that are made by Cosina in Japan.

I don't regret one second buying it…. it really is that good. I did a test against some other lenses we had lying around and while some of them were ok in the center at 2.8 Most of them were crap in the corners.

The so-called great value for money 50 1.8 looks terrible compared to the Otus… really down right terrible, and it feels equally as terrible operating. I never understood why people were so hyped over this Canon 50 1.8, but I guess that is needed when all you can afford is that.

I'll be picking up every Otus lens as they come out… as simple as that. But I fully acknowledge that some people are depending on AF to get the job done. I'm not… and if I am I'd still choose expensive L lenses over cheap non-L.

The thing is…. I shoot a lot of video. Actually video has become my main business by now. So I need something that operates well for video and even L lenses dont do that. The throw is too short and the sharpness fall off looks ugly, often the bokeh as well.

There's a reason that most major cinema releases, heck even Sundance and Cannes short films are shot on Arri Master / Ultra Primes or Cooke lenses. Because even though they are completely manual, the operate better, they are consistent in look and light transmission and that nice long throw for pulling focus.

Yummy.

Quite.

Actually, I can never understand all this hype around mere 35mm cameras in any case, everyone who truly appreciates quality is already using medium format. I don't understand these people that rely on manual focus either; everyone that's anybody simply employs a man to do that for them! Next, these plebs will be suggesting that it is acceptable to carry ones own kit, instead of employing a Nepalese Sherpa.

I've been told that Zeiss and Leitz lenses are manufactured in Japan now and that these brand names are just licenses leased out by international trading companies that own those names. Is this true? Or, does Zeiss and Leitz still manufacture everything in Germany? Thanks

What difference would it make?

If Zeiss puts their name on it, I don't care if they had Aunt Mabel make it on Mars.

+1. Zeiss lenses are for the most part, made in Japan by Cosina. Meaning, you have excellent German lens design, being made by the Japanese who excel at high quality mass production. A perfect match in this era, in my books.

That's just my point. If Zeiss only exists in a leased name only then what's the hype all about. It's just another company trying to cash in on a former good name. My guess is we're all looking for the nostalgia in a new digital world. Reminds me of all the products being marketed today with names such as Polaroid and Bell & Howell.

I looked at the review - very impressive at 1.4. It is the contrast between sharpness of focus plane that sets off the bokeh - aka EF 85 1.2.

However in the comparisons I looked up TDP crops of the Nikkor 58 1.4G. What's going on there !? Have you seen the price of this lens ? Nikon is currently like a child's spinning top just as it loses it's momentum; it wobbles all over the place.

Lucky for us Canon users that Zeiss are pushing the boundaries - 'cos Nikon certainly aren't.

Incidentally I believe the Otus is made in Germany; it's the other dslr 'Zeiss' lenses that are made by Cosina in Japan.

Well...I own the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE...that would be one of " the other dslr 'Zeiss' lenses that are made by Cosina in Japan", I know it is not at the level of the new Otus...but it beats any 21mm (or there-abouts, zoom or otherwise), that Canon has produced, hands down...so, I really didn't care where it was made.

I looked at the review - very impressive at 1.4. It is the contrast between sharpness of focus plane that sets off the bokeh - aka EF 85 1.2.

However in the comparisons I looked up TDP crops of the Nikkor 58 1.4G. What's going on there !? Have you seen the price of this lens ? Nikon is currently like a child's spinning top just as it loses it's momentum; it wobbles all over the place.

Lucky for us Canon users that Zeiss are pushing the boundaries - 'cos Nikon certainly aren't.

Incidentally I believe the Otus is made in Germany; it's the other dslr 'Zeiss' lenses that are made by Cosina in Japan.

I've been told that Zeiss and Leitz lenses are manufactured in Japan now and that these brand names are just licenses leased out by international trading companies that own those names. Is this true? Or, does Zeiss and Leitz still manufacture everything in Germany? Thanks

What difference would it make?

If Zeiss puts their name on it, I don't care if they had Aunt Mabel make it on Mars.

+1. Zeiss lenses are for the most part, made in Japan by Cosina. Meaning, you have excellent German lens design, being made by the Japanese who excel at high quality mass production. A perfect match in this era, in my books.

That's just my point. If Zeiss only exists in a leased name only then what's the hype all about. It's just another company trying to cash in on a former good name. My guess is we're all looking for the nostalgia in a new digital world. Reminds me of all the products being marketed today with names such as Polaroid and Bell & Howell.

Going to the extraordinary effort to make the best standard lens for a DSLR is hardly "just another company trying to cash in on a former good name." It takes great engineering and manufacturing, not nostalgia, to make a lens like this one.